Jazz vs. Smooth Jazz

rarisgod · #1 02-16-2010, 03:50 PM

I was on the main page and I caught the name of a thread in the DB section about this, so I thought I'd bring it over here as well.

How would you differentiate between Jazz and Smooth Jazz?

Now a lot of the folks who posted in the DB section said they didn't care too much for smooth jazz, but I like smooth jazz myself. That said, I also love "real" jazz. I don't see either of these types of music anymore "real" than the other, so I don't understand that...

Thoughts on all of this? Discuss.

RBrownBass · #2 02-16-2010, 05:57 PM

Not much to say about it except:

It isn't Jazz
I've played it some, and enjoyed it (to some degree) for what it is
Plenty of guys who play it are capable of much more, so I don't bash them for playing it

The DB is a wonderful instrument- but there are two members of the DB forum on Talkbass who tend to be a bit over the top in terms of their evaluation of music and music-related things. The more grains of salt you carry with you when you visit there, the better off you'll be while reading the posts you'll find.

fdeck · #3 02-16-2010, 09:37 PM

My response on the DB forum:

How would you differentiate between a bull and a steer?

bongomania · #4 02-16-2010, 11:25 PM

^^^^ Excellent answer!

FunkyMan · #5 02-16-2010, 11:46 PM

Well, jazz is extensive .. but IMO without much drama, say that the smooth is the "balad" part of jazz spectrum, and the rest is more aggressive, more daring, very interesting in my opinion! (hey it's an opinion from a non jazzist guy (yet, i'm in the way

) don't scold me)

AnchorHoy · #6 02-17-2010, 06:12 PM

Quote:

How would you differentiate between Jazz and Smooth Jazz?

Real Jazz takes chances. Smooth Jazz is utterly "safe" and predictable music for people who don't like to be challenged by anything that takes any actual effort or concentration to listen to

The best illustration I can give is a Smooth Jazz version of Brubeck's Take Five that I heard a few years back

After a few seconds of listening to it, there was something vaguely 'wrong' about the tune that took a few more seconds for me to figure out. Once I did isolate the problem, it hit me like a ton of bricks:

Whoever commissioned that monstrosity of a cut had taken a piece that was explicitly and intentionally written in 5/4 time (right down to the title of the tune) and dumbed it down to 4/4 time

I'm not cracking on the players for doing it that way. Paying gigs are getting harder and harder to find *shrug* and they did what they needed to do in order to get paid.....

What I will (and did, at the time I heard it) absolutely attack without mercy is the mindset that came up with the idea to begin with. The Smooth Jazz fan who exposed me to this particular monstrosity was almost as offended by my commentary on the tune as I was by having to listen to it, and we ended up parting ways soon afterward. No skin off my back. I didn't like Pat Boone's heavy metal album either

Hoover · #7 02-17-2010, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnchorHoy

Real Jazz takes chances. Smooth Jazz is utterly "safe" and predictable music for people who don't like to be challenged by anything that takes any actual effort or concentration to listen to

In my most charitible moments I will describe Smooth Jazz as "instrumental pop music" ...i.e., it has to fulfill the same lowest-common denominator criteria as anything on the Billboard Top 40: Simple, non-provocative, non-challenging, easily digested by the least curious, least educated members of the population.

In my less-charitible moments I will on occasion also point out how a lot of supposed "Real Jazz" is only slightly more substantive than Smooth Jazz, but at least it does still actually demand effort or concentration to listen to. But I'm not sure if that's necessarily a good thing...

DesertCreature · #8 02-18-2010, 08:47 AM

Smooth jazz (some of which I like) has never had a real art following and its losing its commercial niche as the elevator music of choice. Now 70's and 80's pop is moving into that role. So its really a loser for potential gigs, IME.

To answer you question, the similarity is that Smooth Jazz and Jazz typically use the same instrumentation, and because smooth jazz was effectively the only marginally lucrative market left for horn-featured acts, some jazz artists turned to it to earn money. Beyond that, I can't think of any other generally applicable similarity.

tycobb73 · #9 02-18-2010, 08:50 AM

I'm not a huge jazz fan but when I lsten to it I go for the stuff of the nonsmooth variety. But I will never discredit a genre or artist. Music is musc that cames in all varieties and for all different people.

fearceol · #10 02-18-2010, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tycobb73

But I will never discredit a genre or artist. Music is music that comes in all varieties and for all different people.

+1.

It's all music. Just because a certain type of music is challenging and complex, does not make it any more "real" or superior to another genre. "Real" music is in the ear of the beholder. Often, smooth jazz is a gateway into jazz for some (it was for me), as it's more instantly accessible.

What is the basic difference ? ... it's appeal.

Rudreax · #11 02-18-2010, 10:09 AM

IME, the biggest problem people have had with "Smooth Jazz" is not so much the implied amount of complexity within the music, but the use of the term "Jazz" to describe something that isn't really "Jazz" to them. It is as if the creators of the term just added the word on to give it some extra appeal.

maestrovert · #12 02-18-2010, 10:12 AM

there's no place for snobbery -musical or otherwise- to my way of thinkin'.....

PsychoScout · #13 02-18-2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rarisgod

I was on the main page and I caught the name of a thread in the DB section about this, so I thought I'd bring it over here as well.

How would you differentiate between Jazz and Smooth Jazz?

Now a lot of the folks who posted in the DB section said they didn't care too much for smooth jazz, but I like smooth jazz myself. That said, I also love "real" jazz. I don't see either of these types of music anymore "real" than the other, so I don't understand that...

Thoughts on all of this? Discuss.

Feel free to come over to the dark side and discuss it with them evil doghouse peoples.....

I call lack of tention! Elevator music just keeps on going and going and going and going... there's no edge, just wobbliness....

superfunk47 · #14 02-18-2010, 10:16 AM

([Weather Report / Inspiration] - Balls) + (Soprano Sax / 90) + Greedy Record Label $$ x (Reverb^[# of Desired Albums Sold]) = Smooth Jazz.

fearceol · #15 02-18-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudreax

IME, the biggest problem people have had with "Smooth Jazz" is not so much the implied amount of complexity within the music, but the use of the term "Jazz" to describe something that isn't really "Jazz" to them. It is as if the creators of the term just added the word on to give it some extra appeal.

What you say is very true.

"Jazz" is just an umbrella name that covers a multitude. Louis Armstrong, on first hearing bebop, to his eternal regret, remarked something along the lines of.. "that is not jazz".

Why do people not want to include smooth jazz under the "jazz umbrella"? This pigeon-holing and name-tagging of music always amuses me. Who cares what it is called.. just enjoy. Life is too short for such trivia.

fretman4god · #16 02-18-2010, 10:28 AM

wouldn't marcus miller be included in smooth jazz?

PsychoScout · #17 02-18-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearceol

Why do people not want to include smooth jazz under the "jazz umbrella"?

Because smooth jazz just doesn't jazz... there's no way to explain it, but some music jazzes, other music just doesn't (even music not described as jazz can jazz imo)

fearceol · #18 02-18-2010, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsychoScout

there's no way to explain it,

In other words, you dont know.

PsychoScout · #19 02-18-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearceol

In other words, you dont know.

not my fault if you can't hear it

Quote:

Man, if you have to ask what it (jazz) is, you'll never know.

—Louis Armstrong

MonetBass · #20 02-18-2010, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnchorHoy

The best illustration I can give is a Smooth Jazz version of Brubeck's Take Five that I heard a few years back

After a few seconds of listening to it, there was something vaguely 'wrong' about the tune that took a few more seconds for me to figure out. Once I did isolate the problem, it hit me like a ton of bricks:

Whoever commissioned that monstrosity of a cut had taken a piece that was explicitly and intentionally written in 5/4 time (right down to the title of the tune) and dumbed it down to 4/4 time

I remember hearing that one, and it hit me immediately: "Take Five" in 4/4?? What?? That's insane.

Just as there are many different flavors of rock, there are many different flavors of jazz. Granted, a lot of what is considered smooth or contemporary jazz would not be considered jazz by a purist, but that music has jazz influences and elements. Heck, even Russ Freeman (Rippingtons) has said "We're not a jazz group, we're an instrumental rock group", but they're still lumped into the jazz category.

In reality it's just a label that the music industry insists on putting on the music to help the average consumer, which, clearly, we bassists on this site are NOT. IMO there is a fine line between jazz fusion and progressive/art rock, and I tend to categorize (if I HAVE to) music by the artist and what the intention is of the music itself. In the end, call it what you like, as long as it's good music and you enjoy it.